Re: Yearly Champion
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:35 pm
*Hails Mike's idea*
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Sorry. It's this "first unread post" thing, it meant I'd already read your post and forgotten it.Charlie Reams wrote:This is a good idea. Especially since I suggested it.David Roe wrote:How's about the 2010 grand final being the first match of 2011? The second series of 2010 will end just before Christmas as usual, and the new series starts in January with a little bang. The champ has at least a few days off between filming dates, as well.
This C of C circa 2000 was quickly put together because IIRC, C4 extended our series run to go over the whole of Xmas, and we didn't want to start a new series proper in the middle of the festive period. It wasn't repeated because it seems harsh to only have a limited number of competitors when there are more than enough worthy participants, and it's perhaps unfair on those who miss out. That was 2000, but 10 years later things are different and times have changed. It's pretty foolhardy to have a 16-player C of C tournament, spread over 3 weeks, to be broadcast at our peak time of year, January, when the likelihood is that around 12 of those taking part have little or nothing to say for themselves. For Countdown to carry on, we need applicants, people willing to take part. They can only be sourced from viewers, which pretty much stands to reason. The viewers want to be entertained, as well as playing along with the game. The lighter the feel of the show, the better the show is, the more people will watch, the more will want to take part, and the more they feel they can compete with those on screen, there more likely they are to apply in the first place. It's not a situation of my making. Earlier this year, for the first time ever, i had to go to the lengths of typing out a polite note and placing it in the green room, asking contestants to look at Jeff when being spoken to, to try and muster up more than a 1-word reply, and to remember that they were appearing on television, not sitting in their bedrooms playing apterous. Something had to be done because it was that bad. I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today. Online facebooking, internetting, twittering etc, maybe that has something to do with it, i dunno. When Des O'Connor was hosting, the biggest single complaint we had, across the board, was that the contestants were not given enough attention, it was all jokes, gags, Glasgow Empire, Butlins etc etc. Now we're trying to throw as much stuff as possible to those taking part and at times we're barely getting an audible response. Believe you me, if i could wave a wand and make it different i most certainly would.David Williams wrote:Mike Brown's format is similar to the CoC that Scott Mearns won. That had four series winners, plus two losing finalists. Scott and Kate Ogilvie were given byes to the semis (not sure how that was decided) and they duly won and contested the final.
At the time I was new to Countdown, and didn't know either that CoC was a regular thing, or that this was a different format to normal. To me it was just Scott beating some more people I hadn't seen before, neatly filling the week between Christmas and New Year.
Perhaps Mike and Damian can cast their minds back to why it happened, whether they thought it worked, and why it wasn't repeated.
Or maybe there have always been shy people, and now there's a way they can go on TV, be good at something, gain some confidence and have a good time. Give them a break.D Eadie wrote:I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today.
I thought the younger generation were all off their faces on Mephadrone.Charlie Reams wrote:Or maybe there have always been shy people, and now there's a way they can go on TV, be good at something, gain some confidence and have a good time. Give them a break.D Eadie wrote:I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today.
Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.Charlie Reams wrote:Or maybe there have always been shy people, and now there's a way they can go on TV, be good at something, gain some confidence and have a good time. Give them a break.D Eadie wrote:I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today.
Maybe show it on More 4 and see what the audience figures are like.D Eadie wrote:Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.Charlie Reams wrote:Or maybe there have always been shy people, and now there's a way they can go on TV, be good at something, gain some confidence and have a good time. Give them a break.D Eadie wrote:I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today.
Or C4+1?Marc Meakin wrote:Maybe show it on More 4 and see what the audience figures are like.
Oh well, these are the decisions i have to make and they're always taken with the best interests of the show at heart. Cest la vie.David Williams wrote:There are good reasons not to have a three week CoC, but I don't see this as one of them.
That's fine, I don't have any objections to the CoC restructure. I just think it's a bit unnecessary to advertise the fact that you're changing the structure of the programme in response to certain contestants being a little quiet, especially when those contestants are obviously reading this and are probably well aware of their social nerves already. I felt someone had to stick up for them, because they've given us some great telly in other ways. But I don't doubt that everything you do is in the best interests of the show, and you're clearly doing a good job on that front.D Eadie wrote:Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.
Because he's not busy enough producing the show or anything, right?Clive Brooker wrote:Damian, have you tried debriefing contestants to find out how it felt from their point of view, what would have helped to make life easier, etc? I know you're all busy, but it sounds as though this is important.
Charlie Reams wrote:That's fine, I don't have any objections to the CoC restructure. I just think it's a bit unnecessary to advertise the fact that you're changing the structure of the programme in response to certain contestants being a little quiet, especially when those contestants are obviously reading this and are probably well aware of their social nerves already. I felt someone had to stick up for them, because they've given us some great telly in other ways. But I don't doubt that everything you do is in the best interests of the show, and you're clearly doing a good job on that front.D Eadie wrote:Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.
I fully agree - it's great that CD is a show that is truly based on merit unlike most other game shows which appear to require chatty competitors and demographic box-ticking, and it would be a shame if Damian was forced to go that way.D Eadie wrote:Charlie Reams wrote:I don't want to write off the C of C any more than the next man, perhaps just a compromise that instead of spending 1000 hours online practising Countdown in readiness for the show, maybe spend 998 hours playing and give 2 hours thought to what you can put into the televisual side of things. It's not a lot to ask really.D Eadie wrote:Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.
It's interesting you say this, as I was actually bricking it about the audition because I'm generally quite shy, and was worried because I just knew there'd be parts of the audition where I'd have to maybe stand up and talk about myself a bit, and shit like that, and I just hate having to do that (on training courses etc). I was stunned when there wasn't, and that it really was wholly about assessing your ability at the game. Ironically, I wasn't worried about that bit at all, and was utter shit at it, whereas I probably did okay on the other bit because I was quite chatty and managed to make a few weak jokes. But anyway - can't you use the audition to... well, audition people for TV?D Eadie wrote:I don't want to write off the C of C any more than the next man, perhaps just a compromise that instead of spending 1000 hours online practising Countdown in readiness for the show, maybe spend 998 hours playing and give 2 hours thought to what you can put into the televisual side of things. It's not a lot to ask really.
Yeah same. When I auditioned I put on my talkative hat, only to find out much later it didn't matter.Jon Corby wrote:It's interesting you say this, as I was actually bricking it about the audition because I'm generally quite shy, and was worried because I just knew there'd be parts of the audition where I'd have to maybe stand up and talk about myself a bit, and shit like that, and I just hate having to do that (on training courses etc).
Better still get the contestants pissed before recording.Jon Corby wrote:It's interesting you say this, as I was actually bricking it about the audition because I'm generally quite shy, and was worried because I just knew there'd be parts of the audition where I'd have to maybe stand up and talk about myself a bit, and shit like that, and I just hate having to do that (on training courses etc). I was stunned when there wasn't, and that it really was wholly about assessing your ability at the game. Ironically, I wasn't worried about that bit at all, and was utter shit at it, whereas I probably did okay on the other bit because I was quite chatty and managed to make a few weak jokes. But anyway - can't you use the audition to... well, audition people for TV?D Eadie wrote:I don't want to write off the C of C any more than the next man, perhaps just a compromise that instead of spending 1000 hours online practising Countdown in readiness for the show, maybe spend 998 hours playing and give 2 hours thought to what you can put into the televisual side of things. It's not a lot to ask really.
Jon Corby wrote: But anyway - can't you use the audition to... well, audition people for TV?
Oh yes indeed.Douglas Wilson wrote:Kirk, Neil, Hamish, James, Andrew, Jeffrey, Oliver, Craig.
All contenders to be participants in the next CoC and IMO have more personality than your average Countdown contestant.
Whilst true, the semi final between Innis and Chris was probably the best episode of Countdown there's ever been. Several people told me they enjoyed it. Imagine having 15 of thoseD Eadie wrote: but a really tense, serious and quiet C of C for 3 weeks isn't a true representation of the all-year-round product
How about making Fridays the day to broadcast a load of stored-up CoC matches - that could probably fill up the quieter summer months and gives a little variety to each week.Kirk Bevins wrote:Whilst true, the semi final between Innis and Chris was probably the best episode of Countdown there's ever been. Several people told me they enjoyed it. Imagine having 15 of thoseD Eadie wrote: but a really tense, serious and quiet C of C for 3 weeks isn't a true representation of the all-year-round product
This is a nice idea. There would still be a CofC and it wouldn't all be shown in a big block. If they were all recorded together and then spread out, you wouldn't have two champions in the green room at recordings everyday with the normal contestants either. As I understand it, episodes are recorded in bunches of 5 (5 a day), which makes sense and is very convenient for the DC guest as it is the number of episodes in a week. So with your suggestion there would arise another problem, perhaps the most obvious solution would be to record only 4 episodes a day for the normal series. This itself could have problems or benefits tho, who knows?Ian Volante wrote: How about making Fridays the day to broadcast a load of stored-up CoC matches - that could probably fill up the quieter summer months and gives a little variety to each week.
This would surely be far too spread out and hard to follow.JackHurst wrote:This is a nice idea. There would still be a CofC and it wouldn't all be shown in a big block. If they were all recorded together and then spread out, you wouldn't have two champions in the green room at recordings everyday with the normal contestants either. As I understand it, episodes are recorded in bunches of 5 (5 a day), which makes sense and is very convenient for the DC guest as it is the number of episodes in a week. So with your suggestion there would arise another problem, perhaps the most obvious solution would be to record only 4 episodes a day for the normal series. This itself could have problems or benefits tho, who knows?Ian Volante wrote: How about making Fridays the day to broadcast a load of stored-up CoC matches - that could probably fill up the quieter summer months and gives a little variety to each week.
Presenter gives update in opening chat - Robert is your grandfather's nephew's sibling. Or something.Gavin Chipper wrote:This would surely be far too spread out and hard to follow.JackHurst wrote:This is a nice idea. There would still be a CofC and it wouldn't all be shown in a big block. If they were all recorded together and then spread out, you wouldn't have two champions in the green room at recordings everyday with the normal contestants either. As I understand it, episodes are recorded in bunches of 5 (5 a day), which makes sense and is very convenient for the DC guest as it is the number of episodes in a week. So with your suggestion there would arise another problem, perhaps the most obvious solution would be to record only 4 episodes a day for the normal series. This itself could have problems or benefits tho, who knows?Ian Volante wrote: How about making Fridays the day to broadcast a load of stored-up CoC matches - that could probably fill up the quieter summer months and gives a little variety to each week.
Without re-reading loads of stuff, I think we think all this sort of stuff because Damian has indeed told us. It's always surprised me, so I can't think of any other reason for my believing it other than that it's come from the horse's mouth.Gavin Chipper wrote:This isn't aimed at anyone in particular by the way. There are lots of quiet contestants - is the evidence really there that CofC contestants are overall "worse" in this respect than your average contestant? Or, perhaps more significantly, have the viewers noticed/mentioned it? I sometimes wonder if a lot of this sort of talk is based on our assumptions of the "regular viewer". Things like "your regular viewer wouldn't understand what was going on in a three-week CofC." Really? Have they written in and complained? Perhaps Damian could tell us. And a lot of people say that viewers wouldn't like being beaten for three weeks. Damain must have some idea of the viewers' positive/negative responses in proportional terms.
I don't buy this 'apterous produces nerdy quiet contestants' argument: if anything it 'outs' them into a social environment wherein their introverted tendencies are challenged. Chris seemed fairly quiet but then was selected to play the Big Brother version of the game so producers must not be as concerned as they maintain.David Williams wrote:Without re-reading loads of stuff, I think we think all this sort of stuff because Damian has indeed told us. It's always surprised me, so I can't think of any other reason for my believing it other than that it's come from the horse's mouth.Gavin Chipper wrote:This isn't aimed at anyone in particular by the way. There are lots of quiet contestants - is the evidence really there that CofC contestants are overall "worse" in this respect than your average contestant? Or, perhaps more significantly, have the viewers noticed/mentioned it? I sometimes wonder if a lot of this sort of talk is based on our assumptions of the "regular viewer". Things like "your regular viewer wouldn't understand what was going on in a three-week CofC." Really? Have they written in and complained? Perhaps Damian could tell us. And a lot of people say that viewers wouldn't like being beaten for three weeks. Damain must have some idea of the viewers' positive/negative responses in proportional terms.
There is no evidence to suggest anything i may have said above was ever true, in fact i made it all up in the name of attention seeking, because i've got nothing else better to do. Thanks for the constructive input though, it's greatly appreciated.David Williams wrote:Without re-reading loads of stuff, I think we think all this sort of stuff because Damian has indeed told us. It's always surprised me, so I can't think of any other reason for my believing it other than that it's come from the horse's mouth.Gavin Chipper wrote:This isn't aimed at anyone in particular by the way. There are lots of quiet contestants - is the evidence really there that CofC contestants are overall "worse" in this respect than your average contestant? Or, perhaps more significantly, have the viewers noticed/mentioned it? I sometimes wonder if a lot of this sort of talk is based on our assumptions of the "regular viewer". Things like "your regular viewer wouldn't understand what was going on in a three-week CofC." Really? Have they written in and complained? Perhaps Damian could tell us. And a lot of people say that viewers wouldn't like being beaten for three weeks. Damain must have some idea of the viewers' positive/negative responses in proportional terms.
David, wake up.David O'Donnell wrote: I don't buy this 'apterous produces nerdy quiet contestants' argument: if anything it 'outs' them into a social environment wherein their introverted tendencies are challenged. Chris seemed fairly quiet but then was selected to play the Big Brother version of the game so producers must not be as concerned as they maintain.
Then you have people like Andrew Hulme and Kirk Bevins who come across as really outgoing. I don't want to reduce this to a ... 'this one was quiet/this one wasn't' but I really dispute the idea that the nerd quotient has gone up. I have been watching the show for years and can remember a certain Damian Eadie being regarded as extremely outgoing because he was such a revelation compared to former contestants.
Also, I'd much prefer a modest quiet contestant to an arrogant 'water sipper' who makes me want to punch my way through the TV screen. It is true that some of the most memorable contestants have had a certain charisma but the defining moment for me was when Jim Martin solved that numbers game: in short, it's the moments of genius that captivate me most about the show: you'll only get these moments if you let the best players fight it out occasionally.
I'd like to think we'd dumb up, if that's the term to use. James Martin's numbers was terrific, can't see how this would be affected by us asking for more of an effort from the younger guys who play. I've said before but it think it's worth repeating because it's important to stress it, that the regular series of Countdown isn't an issue here, it's about dedicating 3 whole weeks of peak-audience Countdown to a C of C that would be largely made up of pretty quiet / shy males under 25, it's just too long.David O'Donnell wrote:I obviously don't have your insight, Damian, I freely admit that. Just expressing my views as a diehard fan though I do realise that we form the minority of your viewing demographic.
I would say though ... didn't you think Jim Martin's number solution was a wonderful piece of television and, if so, how would you plan to replicate such feats if you 'dumb down' the show? Because let's face it, that's what this amounts to.
Oh god that. Then he asked if it was the plural of celeriac.David Williams wrote:Or my all-time favourite, Martin Jarvis' disingenuous "Is there such a thing as a solaria?"
Well, it would be interesting to know if it's based on viewers' comments or your own theories. And as at least one person has mentioned, viewers are more likely to write in to complain than praise or express neutrality, so the results would be skewed anyway.D Eadie wrote:There is no evidence to suggest anything i may have said above was ever true, in fact i made it all up in the name of attention seeking, because i've got nothing else better to do. Thanks for the constructive input though, it's greatly appreciated.
Well, if he considered it a good idea, he'd have a dilemma now because I suggested it.Ben Wilson wrote:In all seriousness though, why not just shift the c of c to after the spring-summer series instead? Seems like an obvious solution to me though no doubt there'll be something I've missed (Damian)...
I'm pretty sure they don't... at least in the majorityKirk Bevins wrote: I think viewers may like the fact these people are coming out with obscure words rather than being able to compete.
Agreed. I can remember watching a CoC, or maybe even just the regular finals, back when I was much younger (and bad at Countdown), and I just found it a bit boring.Andrew Hulme wrote:I'm pretty sure they don't... at least in the majorityKirk Bevins wrote: I think viewers may like the fact these people are coming out with obscure words rather than being able to compete.
Gavin Chipper wrote:Well, it would be interesting to know if it's based on viewers' comments or your own theories. And as at least one person has mentioned, viewers are more likely to write in to complain than praise or express neutrality, so the results would be skewed anyway.D Eadie wrote:There is no evidence to suggest anything i may have said above was ever true, in fact i made it all up in the name of attention seeking, because i've got nothing else better to do. Thanks for the constructive input though, it's greatly appreciated.
Jeff Clayton wrote:Damian........
You can read what you want into my posts - but most of what you do is made up by you. It's a shame that you can't be more mature in your posts, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.D Eadie wrote:Gavin, if you weren't so deliberately antagonistic and matter of factly up yourself, i'd furnish you with a comprehensive reponse, but alas history dictates that whatever is put in front of you, you somehow find a way of questioning it and come over so authoritarian on things that in truth, you know little or nothing about. Therefore, despite having just got back from Scunthorpe having seen my beloved Seasiders turn in an brilliant performance, and despite feeling relaxed about a rare 4 days off work and enjoying a nice bottle of wine, i'd much rather dine out on the undigested sweetcorn kernels freshly picked from a vagrants faeces than spend one more jot of my life acknowledging your existence.
lolRhys Benjamin wrote: Hope this is taken on board
Charlie Reams wrote:lolRhys Benjamin wrote: Hope this is taken on board
Is there anything that's actually seriously wrong about these ideasCharlie Reams wrote:lolRhys Benjamin wrote: Hope this is taken on board
Series 47 had 8 octochamps. No-one complained then. What's the point in having a series finals with the best players in if you have some with 2 wins in?Johnny Canuck wrote: If the problem with recent COCs (and, for that matter, series finals) is that the contestants are getting "too good", a solution could be to increase the series finals from 8 to 16 players, like in Series 2. In Series 60, 61 and 63, more than half of the finalists were Octochamps, and IMHO that percentage is too high. Having 16-person finals would make for a longer leader board with more talent from throughout the series. It would provide an opportunity for some "normal people" (see "RAISING THE BAR ON COUNTDOWN") to get a chance in the finals, because like in the old days, two or three wins could be enough to qualify. I think that if the old 3-month-long series worked well with 8 people in the finals, the new 6-month ones should have 16 people.
I had a chat about this with John Ashmore (series 38 champion) at the Twixmas Scrabble tournament. He seemed surprised about Damian saying there wouldn't be a CofC. I (facetiously) suggested that it should be moved to Sky and there would be a £1 million first prize to lure the likes of Julian Fell, Stewart Holden and Craig Beevers into playing. I think it would be even less likely to happen because instead of a 3-week CoC, there would be 6 months of top players. Although highly improbable, I hope Damian changes his mind because I'd love to play in a CofC and (most likely) get knocked out in the first round. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't think viewers would be turned off by not being able to beat the contestants. Whilst it needs to appeal to a mass audience, I don't think they should worry too much about being perceived as 'high brow'I know that some people will disagree with me, but I've also supported the idea of a second Supreme Championship for a while. My ideal plan for a 6-month SC2 would be to have 15 groups (instead of 7 like in the old one), with the finals being made up of the 15 group winners and Harvey Freeman. Players could be seeded according to their performance in their COCs or yearly championships. I'm fine with COC being removed (for now, anyway), as long as the show moves up to bigger and better things, rather than down to smaller ones.
Yes, but they didn't have 900+ points or solve the conundrums in 0.5 seconds like a lot of Octochamps today.Oliver Garner wrote:Series 47 had 8 octochamps. No-one complained then.
As I mentioned, it wouldn't replace regular Countdown. It could be shown during breaks and on weekends.Oliver Garner wrote:I think it would be even less likely to happen because instead of a 3-week CoC, there would be 6 months of top players.
Yes, but they didn't have 900+ points or solve the conundrums in 0.5 seconds like a lot of Octochamps today.Johnny Canuck wrote:Oliver Garner wrote:Series 47 had 8 octochamps. No-one complained then.
Only one contestant scored 900+ points in Series 63 and only 5 have done so ever. One of them was Julian Fell who did so in 2002. Jeffrey Hansford solved a fair few conundrums in less than 0.5 seconds as well.Johnny Canuck wrote: Yes, but they didn't have 900+ points or solve the conundrums in 0.5 seconds like a lot of Octochamps today.
Do you really think Jeff/Rachel/the team could do 120 episodes on top of the 200+ a year they do presently? They would have to use the studios far more and there would be loads of logistical issues. Channel 4 wouldn't want to show more Countdown than what is on at present, especially since they are moving it back to 3:10 to accommodate 15 more minutes of DonD. Even if it was on at every break/week-end, it would take exactly a year. (365-245 episodes of normal series shown last year).As I mentioned, it wouldn't replace regular Countdown. It could be shown during breaks and on weekends.
I understood the main point of this thread to be that the standard was too high, and that most people don't only want to watch the top guys battle it out, they want to see people to whom they can relate, both in terms of personality and word/number knowledge.Kirk Bevins wrote:But it's good to encourage the standard to increase. I watched the Mastermind COC and, while I couldn't compete, it was just as awe-inspiring to watch the top guys battle it out.
OK, maybe "a lot" of Octochamps was an exaggeration, but my point was that the standard for the current 8-person finals is getting too far beyond what many people enjoy, and that adding more people would bring the average calibre of difficulty down to a level that would be more suitable for the so-called "general public". (Another suggestion, following in the vein of American game shows including Jeopardy!, would be to rename the finals the Championship of Champions, so that there would be a Series 64 CoC, Series 65 CoC, etc... I know this suggestion is probably lame.)Oliver Garner wrote:Only one contestant scored 900+ points in Series 63 and only 5 have done so ever. One of them was Julian Fell who did so in 2002. Jeffrey Hansford solved a fair few conundrums in less than 0.5 seconds as well.
Supreme Championship episodes could be shown on a particular day of the week (e.g., every Friday) and only replace regular Countdown on that day, although then the championship would take even longer.Oliver Garner wrote:Do you really think Jeff/Rachel/the team could do 120 episodes on top of the 200+ a year they do presently? They would have to use the studios far more and there would be loads of logistical issues. Channel 4 wouldn't want to show more Countdown than what is on at present, especially since they are moving it back to 3:10 to accommodate 15 more minutes of DonD. Even if it was on at every break/week-end, it would take exactly a year. (365-245 episodes of normal series shown last year).
How can you be completely sure it hasn't already been done? A bunch of times?D Eadie wrote:This.Charlie Reams wrote:A 0-player CoC would be awesome.
I just had a look back at the CofC XII which went out in May/June and thought 'this standard of play is ridiculous'. Even not including current apterites (Conor, Jono, Mark, Paul H, Corby) and Paul G who told me how he spent loads of time practising, the quality of the games was amazing. On a par with the likes of Kirk, Innis, Chris and Jack I'd say. I don't think the viewers would be any more put off by the standard of play now than they were in 2006 IMO.D Eadie wrote:[ but a really tense, serious and quiet C of C for 3 weeks isn't a true representation of the all-year-round product, and given that it goes out in January when TV ratings are at their highest, i want people to see a true representation of the show, so that some of them come back in Feb, March, April and the rest, which means we'll get to celebrate 10000 shows, nevermind 5000.